• Christian school teacher arrested for alleged sexual assault; more victims suspected
    (archived link)

• Christ the King bookkeeper gets 2 years in prison for embezzling church funds
    (archived link)

• Ex-teacher at Pope John XXIII High School is sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking upskirt photos of students
    (archived link)

• Pakistani religious body declares using VPN is against Islamic law

• Hate pastor renegs on promise to refund tithes

• Priest faces life imprisonment over third child sex offences conviction

• Church of England head resigns over handling of sex abuse scandal
    (archived link)

• Ohio pastor accused of raping a juvenile facing 6 felony counts
    (archived link)

• Televangelist Kenneth Copeland says people who didn’t vote for Trump will hear the names of aborted ‘babies’ for all eternity

   
Previously

  • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    19 hours ago

    A definition is not an assumption, it’s a description of something which has certain known properties. If something else fulfills similar functions to a living being, but it isn’t a biological entity, then, by the biological definition, it isn’t alive. I’m not sure what your issue is here. It’s not like we’re ever going to run out of definitions. Are you arguing in favor of animism?

    My claim is that carbon and hydrogen are distinct substances with particular properties and definitions. There is no “one true substance.”

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      17 hours ago

      Why is the definition of biological life relevant to a conversation about nuclear sentience? You’re the only one throwing the word “life” around. Arguing against its misuse when I haven’t actually used it is classic straw manning.

      • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        16 hours ago

        You’re the one who started arguing that a head may not necessarily be part of a biological being, which was irrelevant to my point. I’m not sure why you’re so concerned about nuclear sentience to begin with, quite frankly. I was just enjoying the conversation. I raised the conjectural angry solar head to demonstrate a claim that can be disproved scientifically to show that some religions have a stronger basis in reality. The sun doesn’t have the properties of a sentient head, so such a claim is false. What is your point, and how does it relate to mine?

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          3 hours ago

          When your point is that the sun can’t be a disembodied godhead because heads are biological, then yes refuting the biological limitation is of central relevance. Claims can’t really be disproven scientifically, that’s not science. Claims can be evaluated and judged scientifically that the sun doesn’t have the properties of a biological head, there is no scientific test to judge that the sun cannot be the head of some unknown non-biological sentient being.

          Science only determines whether data is consistent with a given model. Nothing more, nothing less.

          • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 hours ago

            Science only determines whether data is consistent with a given model. Nothing more, nothing less.

            This isn’t a meaningful distinction. A claim that the sun is an angry head would assert that it fits the model of a head. This is something we can test scientifically. If the data regarding the sun isn’t consistent with the model of a head, then the claim that it’s a head has been disproved. At minimum, we can prove that the data is inconsistent with the model and give significant evidence against the claim.

            So far, the only counterargument to this is “we can’t know for sure that it isn’t the head of an unknown non-biological sentient being.” If this was a substantial argument in favor of the claim, then it would stand to reason that the sun could be considered anything, like a planet from another universe, the eye of a mortal human named Bob, a USB-C cable for a bottle of hand sanitizer, and more.

            I’m not sure what your point is, or why you’re so adamant that the sun may, in fact, be the head of a non-biological sentient being. This has nothing to do with my point that OP’s argument isn’t convincing because it holds equal relevance to other fields.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              1 hour ago

              Incorrect. Robots have electrical heads, organizations have conceptual heads. You’re not making a scientific argument, you’re making semantic strawmen contrived to confirm your biases. Nothing could be further from science.

              • the_toast_is_gone@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                1 hour ago

                First, what is your point?

                Second, does the sun fit any of the following definitions:

                • biological head
                • robotic head
                • head of an organization
                • spiritual head
                • head of a tool
                • match head
                • the head command
                • document head(er)
                • the headless horseman’s head If so, can you explain how with direct evidence or argumentation rather than simply “we can’t say for sure that it doesn’t”? Again, that argument would make it eligible to fit any and all possible definitions.

                Third, if it doesn’t fit any of the above definitions, can you explain which definition of head that it does, what that definition is, and why it’s relevant?